Breaking: John Username has removed the name "John Username" from his profile in an attempt to distance himself from his long-standing criminal history
It's quite simple, we have to put a 1-year statutory deadline on rape claims.
You don't report to the police within 1 year, the rape doesn't exist. Not a text message to your bestie. The police.
The problem with these retroactive rape claims is that they defy probability.
Why is it that men can go on for years without issue, and then when they become politicians or too influential, suddenly 14 women show up, all coordinated to take them down, at the exact moment where the powers that be want them down?
Here, it becomes even more mathematically ludicrous as we are supposed to believe that two men separately engaged in independent rape streaks without issues, then out of pure randomness, a dozen rape/assault victims show up more than a decade later at the same exact moment for both, and also out of pure randomness at the exact moment a bunch of NGOs wanted the two of them down.
It's like when Julian Assange suddenly got accused of rape when the authorities wanted to catch him for journalism. There are co-occurences that are so strong they challenge the null hypothesis instantly. Now imagine Julian Assange had a cousin and the cousin also randomly got charged for rape on that same day. Even more unlikely, imagine the rape claims were from a decade earlier. This is the unlikelihood burden you must accept in order to believe these accusations.
The purpose of a system is what it does. The system simply wanted the Tates to be in jail. The claims materialized to fill that demand.
Did rough sex occur? Who cares. We can't have men living with a sword of Damocles over their head that says: "If you ever speak your mind about this or that, the rough sex could suddenly become a rape."
Statutory limit extensions on rape are one of the important fights led by feminists in the last two decades, and the Tate brothers are the exact examples of why it was so important to them. We've heard the feminists defend this on the pretext that "sometimes victims are just too ashamed to talk."
Their dream world is this: every woman induces and requests rough sex. 99% of the guys end up being nobodies so they don't get annoyed. But groups with money come in to fund, push and "support" these "victims" when the guys accumulate too much power and become part of the 1%.
Feminists love sexual liberation combined with anti-rape puritanism because they see memories of rough sex as money in the bank and future tools to play whack-a-mole with free men, who they see as escaped slaves.
Understand this: there is no such thing as free thought, free market or free speech as long as we live on this matriarchal plantation.
i miss when we had interesting lolcows like joan drunkenly screaming about coming from sperm or alfonso pulling out a shotgun in a gym parking lot
now we just have a bunch of hispanics who think that they’re lions